Vol. 566 No. 5
4 Mr. McGinley asked the Minister for Defence the total financial cost incurred by his Department in providing armed escorts for the movement of cash by the major banks within the country; and the financial reimbursement made by the banking institutions to his Department. [13208/03]
The roles of the Defence Forces as assigned by Government are set out in the White Paper on Defence which was published in February 2000. To aid the civil power – meaning in practice to assist, when requested, the Garda Síochána who have the primary responsibility for law and order, including the protection of the internal security of the State – is among the assigned roles. The Defence Forces, pursuant to their role of rendering aid to the civil power, assist the Garda as required in duties which include cash escorts. Cash escorts include deliveries to banks, post offices and other institutions.
The total cost in respect of the provision by the Defence Forces of assistance to the Garda Síochána in protecting movements of cash for the years 2000 to 2002, including pay, allowances, transport and aerial surveillance, was as follows: €5.97 million in 2000; €6.58 million in 2001; and €6.85 million in 2002. Part of these costs are recouped from the banks through an annual contribution. A sum of €2.86 million has been refunded by the banks to my Department each year since 1995.
According to the Minister's reply and if my calculations are correct, the total cost to the Defence Forces of engaging in this escort duty was €6.85 in 2002, yet the reimbursement for this service from the banks was €2.86 million, which means the Department is out of pocket or subsidising these financial institutions to the tune of €4 million annually. This is happening at a time when there are deferments and cancellations of Defence Forces equipment right, left and centre. We read last week that the helicopter contract was deferred or cancelled. Also, the 65 light armoured vehicles that were ordered have been deferred and we are even down to the stage where the purchase of pistols at a cost of €630 each for soldiers and officers has been deferred or cancelled. The screws are being turned on every area of Defence Forces expenditure, yet we are able to subsidise these financial institutions to the tune of €4 million or perhaps more a year at a time when they are making unprecedented profits. I understand that one of the major financial institutions made a profit – I am not talking about its turnover – of €1.4 billion in 2002 and another made a profit of €1.2 billion. As Deputy Sherlock and others said, the Army is suffering severe cutbacks and its personnel are not able to go about their duties in an efficient way. Could the banks not make a more realistic contribution towards the purchase of some of this equipment, even the pistols? A sum of €1 million would purchase 1,600 pistols and €4 million would purchase about 7,000 of them. Perhaps the Minister should examine that aspect.
Members of the Defence Forces already have 2,000 pistols and I am delighted the Deputy wants to make sure they are given another 6,000 to 8,000, but I do not know what he would want to do with them.
The ones they have are 40 years old.
They are in perfect working order. The Deputy would be in mortal danger if he sat and asked anyone to try them out on him. I would not do that. The Deputy is obviously more ready for execution than I am.
The Defence Forces never had it so good. In terms of Navy ships, aircraft for the Air Corps, APCs, buildings, improvements in accommodation, uniforms and constant recruitment, that side is perfect. The net additional cost to the Defence Forces for providing cash escorts for 2000 was €2.53 million, for 2001 was €2.82 million and for 2002 was €2.98 million.
As the Deputy is aware the staff involved are permanent staff and would be paid for other duties if they were not doing this work. We supply cash escorts to the post offices and social welfare offices and they are included in those costs. Some element of the permanent pay costs should be met by the banking institutions. I am instituting negotiations to see what I can do to increase that amount. It would be very beneficial if we were in a position to do that. This is a matter I am seriously considering.
These matters arose for security situations. For example, the fear that subversives would be in a position to derail cash escorts to post offices, banks and offices of the Department of Social and Family Affairs. The State has an obligation in that aspect of security to protect its people and its property. One needs to take the whole matter in the round, but such considerations will not prevent me from trying to negotiate a more favourable outcome in respect of the amounts of money available from the banks for this activity.
Am I right in assuming that the financial institutions made no contribution for this service since it was initiated in the late 1970s until 1992, a period of 15 years? Am I also right in assuming that the contribution they make to the Department of Defence – the position in respect of Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is separate – merely covers the cost of diesel used and does not even cover the cost of depreciation of these vehicles? We know there are 44 such escorts every week, each costing about €6,000, they happen 52 weeks of the year and many millions of euro are involved. Despite this, financial institutions only pay slightly more than €2 million. I am glad the Minister has told the Dáil he will make approaches to these financial institutions to try to obtain a more meaningful contribution from them. It is past time that it should be done.
I know that, on Question Time, there is probably nothing wrong with exaggerating the position. However, to suggest that the funds provided by banks to the Department of Defence only pay for diesel is nonsense. I said, based on accurate figures, that all the marginal and net additional costs of this activity are recouped.
The main cost is pay.
I am anxious to see if I can obtain more.
